Skepticism in its true sense originated in ancient
Greece, and represents the position that absolute certainty
of knowledge is impossible. In other words, conceptions
of both absolute doubt and absolute certainty are refuted.

In more simple terms, skepticism is about doubting certainty. Too many people who claim to be skeptics remain certain of their world view, however, and focus their 'skepticism' exclusively on alternative views. This is pseudo-skepticism, and is clearly a corruption of the true philosophical definition of skepticism. This excellent link focuses on exposing pseudo-skepticism in its many guises: Skeptical About Skeptics

When the term is used today we generally think of skepticism
of the critical thinking variety, where empirical evidence
is demanded to support new ideas or theories. While
this modern variety, often termed scientific skepticism,
has practical advantages, it is also open to criticism,
and can lead to problems.

"Progress
is made by answering questions. Discoveries are made by
questioning answers." Bernard Haisch

Skepticism as Inertia

The history of science reflects that numerous scientists
have been denigrated by peers unwilling to accept new
ideas that would require a change in their world view,
even when evidence was at hand.

In perhaps the most famous example, Scientific American
magazine ran an article ridiculing the 'alleged' flights
of Wilbur and Orville Wright ... some years after they
had been flying successfully. This pseudo-skepticism
was based on the inertia of prior belief (that heavier
than air flight was impossible), and supported by many
scientists and the US Army. Ironically, a lack of media
coverage was also considered strong evidence against
their claims.

Of particular relevance to this site is the case of
Michael Faraday. He was called a charlatan when he announced
that he could generate an electric current merely by
moving a magnet in a coil of wire!

"Today's
scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments,
and they wander off through equation after equation, and
eventually build a structure which has no relation to
reality." Nikola Tesla

Famous Philosophers of Science

The following philosophers were fond of
discussing such problems, and the implications of their
work should be clear. No scientific theory is invulnerable,
and if anyone thinks they are, then it probably isn't
science, but ideology that is being touted

Fiction
has to be plausible. Reality is under no such constraint."
Anon

Falsificationism

Karl Popper (1902-1994) gave us Falsificationism, a
relatively simple but often misunderstood philosophical
tool for demarcating between science and non-science.
He laid down this methodology in his magnum opus, The
Logic of Scientific Discovery (1959).

His aim was to overcome the Problem of Induction, where
only confirming instances are noted. Turning this on
its head, Popper said that just one contrary result
should be enough to falsify a theory, although any contrary
results should of course be repeatable.

To Popper, the terms Testable, Falsifiable, and Scientific
were synonymous. For a theory to be scientific it should
be testable, and those tests should be vulnerable to
being proved false, ie., falsified. Popper was critical
of so-called theories that leave room for ambiguity;
where the results of a test, in other words, can be
interpreted to fit the theory. Such theories are meaningless,
as they fail to add to our knowledge.

A theory, therefore, can be conclusivley falsified,
but never conclusively verified, as falsification is
its anticipated fate. "Our knowledge can only be
finite, while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite,"
Popper summed up.

Science, according to Popper, thus proceeeds by a process
of 'Conjecture and Refutation'. He was keen to promote
bold theories, and pointed out that the falsification
of a theory was not necessarily a bad thing. In fact
he suggested that falsification might be celebrated
as, ultimately, it marks progress.

Popper, however, recognised problems with Fal. It is
very often possible to immunise a theory against falsification
with ad-hoc hypotheses. Most scientists, after all,
are only human, and sometimes reluctant to see their
cherished theories undermined. Many anomalies are still
ignored or dismissed while the scientific community
pay lip service to Falsifiability. For example, is there
any aspect of the Big Bang that is not ridden with anomalies
and inconsistencies? Most of these would no doubt be
falsifying instances were they to be seriously investigated!

Paradigm Shifts

Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) was also well aware of human
fallibilty, and favoured a different method by which
our knowledge progresses, that of the Paradigm Shift.
In his famous book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,
1962, he proposed the idea that science does not evolve
gradually toward truth, but instead undergoes periodic
revolutions -- paradigm shifts.

For Kuhn, therefore, conjecture and refutation were
inadequate. He argued that scientific theories are gradually
undermined by new theories which eventually replace
them. His ideas echo the famous words of Max Planck,
right.

Paradigm paralysis is psycho-pathological in many cases,
with the victims unwilling to see beyond the comfort-zone
of their own field of expertise. Unfortunately, intelligence
is apparently not the key factor as some intelligent
people are unable to grasp concepts which oppose the
paradigms they've fortified themselves in. This may
explain how someone as smart as Stephen Hawking, for
example, is unable to grasp the fact that there is something
wrong with math-only physics.

The cooked frog analogy seems appropriate here. Put
a frog in boiling water and it will jump out. Put it in
cold water and heat it gradually and it will die cooking, seemingly unaware of its perilous plight.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing
its opponents and making them see the light, but rather
because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation
grows up that is familiar with it." Max Planck

* The intellectual is looking for the right questions
to ask; the pseudo is giving what he claims to be the
right answers.

* The intellectual is evidently motivated by a disinterested
love of truth; the pseudo is interested in being right,
or being thought to be right, whether he is or not.

* The intellectual is willing to admit that what he
does not know is far greater than what he knows; the
pseudo claims to know as much as can be known about
the subject under consideration.

* The intellectual states as good a case for his adversary
as can be made out; the pseudo sets up a straw man and
beats it to death for the sake of seeming superior.

* The intellectual is deeply and constantly aware of
the limitations of human reason; the pseudo makes a
deity of reason and tries to force it into realms it
cannot penetrate.

* The intellectual seeks light from whatever source,
realizing that ideas are no respecters of persons and
turn up in the most unexpected places from the most
improbable people; the pseudo accepts ideas, when he
does, only from experts and specialists and certified
authorities.

* The intellectual advances an hypothesis that he hopes
may be true; the pseudo propounds a dogma that he insists
is true.

* The intellectual recognizes that opposites are not
always contradictory, and may indeed reinforce each
other; the pseudo paints a picture in black and white,
right or wrong, leaving no room for a contrary viewpoint.

* The intellectual knows there are no final answers
to human questions; the pseudo makes each tentative
and provisional answer sound like a finality.

* The intellectual is courageous in opposing majority
opinion, even when it jeopardizes his position; the
pseudo slavishly follows "the most reliable authorities"
in his field sneering at heresies.

* The intellectual never talks down to his audience,
but tries to be as clear as possible; the pseudo talks
above his audience to mystify and impress them."